Add editor pattern test in BracketedPatternTest

[chiao26168]

Compulsory checks

Beta Give feedback

1. Change in CHANGELOG.md described in a way that is understandable for the average user (if applicable)
2. Tests created for changes (if applicable)
3. Manually tested changed features in running JabRef (always required)
4. Screenshots added in PR description (for UI changes)
5. Checked developer's documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I outlined it in this pull request.
6. Checked documentation: Is the information available and up to date? If not, I created an issue at https://github.com/JabRef/user-documentation/issues or, even better, I submitted a pull request to the documentation repository.

The existing test class, org.jabref.logic.citationkeypattern.BracketedPatternTest.java, currently lacks coverage for editor patterns. To address this gap, I have added a new test method, testEditorFieldMarkers() to ensure that the editor pattern functions correctly.

During the execution of testEditorFieldMarkers(), one test case failed. The input provided was "'New', '[edtr3_1]', 'Isaac Newton'", and the expected output was 'New'. However, the actual output was null.

(output of the failed test case)

The source of the error can be found in org.jabref.logic.citationkeypattern.BracketedPattern.
As stated in Customize the citation key generator, when the pattern matches "edtrN_M", the citation key should consist of the first N characters of the Mth editor's last name.

Here is a screenshot highlighting the problem in the source code:

To fix this issue, the following return statement should be used

return authNofMth(editorList,
                            Integer.parseInt(nums[0]),
                            Integer.parseInt(nums[1]));

[Siedlerchr]

Thank you very much! Please go ahead and fix this as well :)

[k3KAW8Pnf7mkmdSMPHz27]

Overall this looks very good, and I love the detailed description! I am slightly disturbed that the authNofMth error seems to have been here since 2017, so test cases for this are definitively needed 😱

Remaining

• I am not sure about one of the test cases. Could you write down your thoughts regarding it, or if we have a similar test case in a different part of the code, reference it? I am hesitant to include it because I believe it might be a misuse of the editors' field, in which case all bets are off, and there isn't a right or wrong behavior of JabRef
• Would you mind fixing the code style check complaints? It is much less important in a test case, but since it is only complaining about new lines
• Since the behavior is changing, please add an entry to the change list, even if it is now the correct behavior as described in the documentation

[Siedlerchr]

@chiao26168 can you please add a changelog entry?

[chiao26168]

@chiao26168 can you please add a changelog entry?

Should I add two entries, one for adding the test case and the other for fixing the error?

[Siedlerchr]

Changelog is intended for the end users so just one for the changed behavior/fix

[k3KAW8Pnf7mkmdSMPHz27]

LGTM! We greatly appreciate the detailed description, the missing test-cases, detection of a bug, and fixing of the bug 😅

[Siedlerchr]

Thanks again for the tests and finding these bugs!